Results NAC 2009

Here are the comprehensive results of the NAC 2009 that took place from October 2nd to 4th, 2009 in Atlanta, Georgia: NAC 2009 Championship: October 4th, 2009 1. Michael Heyder (GER) -- 1 GW 5.5 VP -- 3 VP -- Guruhi Bloat/Combat 2. Ferenc Vasadi (HUN) -- 3 GW 7.5 VP -- 2 VP -- Nosferatu G4/5 Royalty Parity Shift 2. Ruben Feldmann (SUI) -- 3 GW 12 VP -- 0 VP -- Nosferatu G1/2 Royalty Parity Shift 2. Matt Morgan (USA) -- 1 GW 6 VP -- Toreador G1/2 Royalty Parity Shift 2. Hugh Angseesing (UK) -- 1 GW 4.5 VP -- Ventrue antitribu Wall/Bleed First Chance Qualifier: October 4th, 2009 1. Erol Ongun (GER) -- 2 GW 10 VP -- 1.5 VP -- Arika & Friends Mind Rape 2. Ben Peal (USA) -- 1 GW 5.5 VP -- 0.5 VP -- MidCap Animalism Combat 2. Jeff Brendon (USA) -- 3 GW 7.5 VP -- 0.5 VP -- Old School Toreador 2. Bill Troxley (USA) -- 1 GW 3.5 VP -- 0.5 VP -- Weenie Ally 2. Aaron Clark (USA) -- 1 GW 4 VP -- 0 VP -- Tremere Toolbox NAC 2009 Day 1: October 3rd, 2009 1. Hugh Angseesing (UK) -- 2 GW 8 VP -- 1.5 VP -- Ventrue antitribu Wall/Bleed 2. Michael Heyder (GER) -- 2 GW 8 VP -- 1.5 VP -- Guruhi Combat/Bloat 2. Ferenc Vasadi (HUN) -- 2 GW 6 VP -- 0.5 VP -- Neo-Tremere HighCap Toolbox feat. Ani 2. Robyn Tatu (USA) -- 2 GW 9 VP -- 0 VP -- Lasombra Mid Cap Bleed w/ Black Hand Tech 2. Ruben Feldmann (SUI) -- 2 GW 9 VP -- 0 VP -- Pander Vote Last Chance Qualifier: October 3rd, 2009 1. Ferenc Vasadi (HUN) -- 3 GW 8 VP -- 3 VP -- Ravnos Wall feat. Gabrin 2. Bill Troxel (USA) -- 2 GW 9 VP -- 2 VP -- !Malk/Malk Dive into Madness Bleed 2. Erol Ongun (GER) -- 1 GW 6.5 VP -- 0 VP -- Stanislava & Friends Vote & Bloat 2. Nick Miller (AUS) -- 1 GW 5 VP -- 0 VP -- Ravnos Stealth Bleed 2. Michael Heyder (GER) -- 1 GW 4.5 VP -- 0 VP -- Guruhi Bruise & Bleed When you look at the three major events (LCQ, Day 1, Day 2) that two players, Michael and Ferenc did appear in all three finals. While Michael stuck to his successful Guruhi deck, Ferenc switched his deck three times. The metagame on the LCQ was very diversified, since the already qualified players tried often something more quirky decks. The metagame on Day 1 was totally aggressive. Grab a GW, and get qualified at any cost. Allegedly there was one table with the following five decks: three KS S&B decks, one Obfuscate&Presence deck and one Nergal Turbo deck. The metagame on Day 2 was completely different; the S&B faction was almost not present, and mostly big cap vote and wall decks were played. In any case a great experience for all participants, and I want to thank you the participants for attending, LSJ for judging the tournaments and the organizers for the tournament David & Robyn Tatu, Jeff Thompson and Oscar Garza for their huge efforts for making the tournament happen. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Ralf ================= NAC 2009 Blog: http://vtesnorthamericanchampionship2009.blogspot.com

Congrats to everyone ! It hasn't been mentionned that Ruben Feldman made 2 finals, congrats mate ! And Errol did good too, although not in the "main" tournament all the way. Looks like it's been a great tournament !! Hope you all had fun. ------- Orpheus [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 5, 10:55 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > Congrats to everyone ! > > It hasn't been mentionned that Ruben Feldman made 2 finals, congrats mate ! > > And Errol did good too, although not in the "main" tournament all the way. > > Looks like it's been a great tournament !! Hope you all had fun. > > ------- > Orpheus Hugh Angseesing also made his way to two finals, and he actually won one of those :) Congratulations to all; nice work in Atlanta, Team Europe !

[ quoted text not captured ] It's a real Who's Who of V:tES, this NAC. :)

Tobias wrote: > On 5 okt, 11:53, floppyzedolfin <floppyzedol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 5, 10:55 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: >> >>> Congrats to everyone ! >> >>> It hasn't been mentionned that Ruben Feldman made 2 finals, >>> congrats mate ! >> >>> And Errol did good too, although not in the "main" tournament all >>> the way. >> >>> Looks like it's been a great tournament !! Hope you all had fun. >> >>> ------- >>> Orpheus >> >> Hugh Angseesing also made his way to two finals, and he actually won >> one of those :) Sorry I forgot you Hugh ! Way to go man... >> Congratulations to all; nice work in Atlanta, Team Europe ! > > It's a real Who's Who of V:tES, this NAC. :) With the exception of all the great players from the rest of the world who couldn't make it to this event, yes. You'll get the "real" who's who by combining the NAC and the EC results. ;-) Roger, Roger. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] > Orpheus- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Michaels Day 1 NAC deck was Lasombra and not Guruhi. Ralf :) Jeff

On Oct 5, 2:44 pm, Big Eye <jbra...@gmail.com> wrote: >... > Michaels Day 1 NAC deck was Lasombra and not Guruhi. Ralf :) Oh right .. thanks for the correction. Regards, Ralf

I'd be curious to see the following decklists : > 1. Michael Heyder (GER) -- 1 GW 5.5 VP -- 3 VP -- Guruhi Bloat/Combat / -- > 2 GW 8 VP -- 1.5 VP -- > 2. Robyn Tatu (USA) -- 2 GW 9 VP -- 0 VP -- Lasombra Mid Cap Bleed w/ > Black Hand Tech > 1. Ferenc Vasadi (HUN) -- 3 GW 8 VP -- 3 VP -- Ravnos Wall feat. > Gabrin > 2. Michael Heyder (GER) -- 1 GW 4.5 VP -- 0 VP -- Guruhi Bruise & > Bleed (not the same one ? Does this guy love Guruhi or what ?!?) In any case, a succesful Guruhi deck is a first, maybe the Laibon got some love coming after all... Rofer, Roger. Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] It's the same deck IIRC. I just copied and pasted the results from different days, so descriptions varied a little bit. Robyn has recorded the deck list yesterday. It will be posted anytime soon. Best regards, Ralf ==================== NAC2009: http://vtesnorthamericanchampionship2009.blogspot.com/

On 5 okt, 12:44, "Orpheus" <orpheus.TAKEOU...@free.fr> wrote: > Tobias wrote: .. > With the exception of all the great players from the rest of the world who > couldn't make it to this event, yes. You'll get the "real" who's who by > combining the NAC and the EC results. ;-) Yeah, no slights intended, of course. There's more 'greats' out there than finalist slots, anyway, ;)

Not such a good showing for team USA this year. The Euros swept all the main tournaments and Americans only had one seat at each of the LCQ, day 1 and day 2 tournaments. In fact, I was the only American to score a game win on day 2. I tried to confuse the issue by insisting that Michael was in fact the American and therefore should be ousted first, but for some reason that didn't work. I really think that was my strongest strategy and best opportunity to win, but maybe one of the observers can point out where I went wrong. The only solution I can think of to this problem is to start claiming Ruben for Team USA, since he lives in New York now. At 3rd seed, I had the choice to prey on Michael (Guruhi block/combat) or Hugh (!Ventrue block/bleed/some combat). Since I knew Hugh's deck didn't rush and didn't come forward too quickly (at least not without an irresponsible bleeder behind it), I chose to prey on Michael, figuring he wouldn't rush me out of existence right away, giving a VP to someone else. I was right about that at least. Ferenc chose to sit as Hugh's prey, then Ruben chose to sit as Ferenc's prey. Michael went first. Michael had a horrible crypt draw, but unfortunately for me, Ruben came at me so fast, I had no opportunity to capitalize on Michael's bad luck. Ruben played The Parthenon and Zillah's Valley, getting Selma on turn 1. I put four on Anson. On turn 2, Ruben played Legendary Vampire on Selma, then played Kaymakli Nightmares, which gave me basically the same crypt draw, but meant I wouldn't get Anson until turn 3. It also improved Michael's draw. Luckily, Ferenc had played a Dreams and already had Baron Dieudonne in play. Ruben hit me for 8 again (Parity Shift/bleed) on turn 3, so I had just 6 pool remaining when I put Anson into play. Team not-Ruben (me, Ferenc and Hugh, who had a vote from Joseph O'Grady and didn't want Ruben to run the table so quickly) managed to vote away the Legendary Vampire and Ferenc gave me 3 pool by shifting Ruben. I survived another turn as Ruben got out Suhailia and another Legendary Vampire. I Minion Tapped Anson and avoided the 4 bleed from Suhailia by tapping her with Scalpel Tongue before she could bleed me when Selma called a vote. Ferenc asked me if I would help him kill Ruben. There was obviously some discussion, but I agreed to help and in exchange, he wouldn't come forward until I had a 2nd vampire, so Ruben was out first. I had 11 pool left. Meanwhile, Michael was tooling up undisturbed and had a Fame on Hugh's Neighbor John. Hugh was attempting to conserve fortitude cards and still make some headway against Ferenc. Nothing much happened for a few turns other than Hugh's Owain feeding Anson blood, so I could Minion Tap again (costing 3 due to Villain!). I put Alexandra into play in an attempt to have some kind of game. By now Michael had three Guruhi out, including Nanglia Were. He had some Raven Spies and stuff and quite a lot of pool. It looked glum. I was hoping he might get overconfident and go too low and I could kill him with a TGB vote, but those odds were slim. Ruben had taken Anthelios with him when he died, so there was no recycling for me. Ferenc eventually Parity Shifted some of my pool to him and bled me kind of low with Petrodon. Hugh saw his time was up as Michael was very close to killing him, so he tapped out Ferenc and Pentexed one of his guys and went for the lunge. Ferenc had sufficient wakes and survived. He also AI'd Owain on a bleed for 6. Very bad for Team Not Gonna Get VPs. Ferenc hit me again after removing the Pentex and I was almost dead. Michael was at 13 pool with one untapped vampire. I had two Aires and a KRC. If Michael had zero wakes (fat chance, as he had hardly played any), I could kill him. Any chance is better than no chance, so I played my own Pentex and called the KRC. Michael blocked, so I resigned myself to death. Hugh and I both died around the same time. Once strong, Ferenc was much weaker than Michael now. Michael had a ton of pool and four minions, including a rusher. There wasn't much doubt how things would come out at that point. Fun game. I look forward to some rematches in Palma. Hopefully I will have a better deck. Mine is okay, but it's a bit slow and a lot can go wrong. This is the first tournament in which Villeins really hurt me. I could've played Villeins myself, but they aren't recycleable with Anthelios, since they stay in play. That's why I played Minion Taps. My deck wasn't really a big Parity Shift deck. It only has two in sixty cards. The six Ashur Tables I played weren't a huge help in three of my games, but they were somewhat instrumental in the 3rd round which I won. The Ambulance angle was never useful, which is too bad, because it's a fun trick, but I was never able to put more than one Aching Beauty into play, so it wasn't that huge. It would probably be better as just a plain TGB deck with or without the Ashur Tablets or as an Aching Beauty deck that has more defense. Anyway, I had a great time and wish I could've come for the full week. Thanks to all the organizers and congratulations to the winners, especially our champion, Michael "The American" Heyder! Matt Morgan --

On Oct 5, 9:45 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > > Very bad for Team Not Gonna Get VPs. > That team never does well for some reason. :)

[ quoted text not captured ] Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to the LCQ, so it was two 2 on 2 for me, but no victories... My first final (playing pander), i didnt draw dia and both my prey and pred had vote cards in their starting hands. Turn two , Robyn took out a bishop and wasn't willing to let LoP hit the table, and after a turn later, I was surrounded by 6 votes and my game was over, unless my prey or pred needed me for the win. Matt's description of the day 2 final pretty much gives you the full story, except for my terrible crypt draw, having only 2 different vampires. I was also 1 pool short of bringing out a third prince to vote lock and hopefully survive one turn's bleed with second traditions. My plan was to oust Matt, after which i would have a clear vote lock (being able to conteset the justicar title too), which is why i sat as his predator. I had a great time and it was nice to see everyone!! Thanks to the organizers!

Thanks for coming to Atlanta and putting up such a good report. Sorry about that 3rd round on day 1.

[ quoted text not captured ] Great work Team Europa :) //Alex Swedish NC

On Oct 5, 6:59 am, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Any change to get deck lists? Kind regards, pallando

On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, pallando wrote: > > NAC 2009 Blog: > > http://vtesnorthamericanchampionship2009.blogspot.com > Any change to get deck lists? Nope, no change. The TWDs from Friday and Saturday will be posted this evening. Sunday's event TWDs will be posted when their lists become available. No other deck lists were acquire by the organizers. All attendees are invited to share their deck lists here.

On Oct 5, 10:45 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Not such a good showing for team USA this year. The Euros swept all the > main tournaments and Americans only had one seat at each of the LCQ, day 1 > and day 2 tournaments. In fact, I was the only American to score a game > win on day 2. I tried to confuse the issue by insisting that Michael was > in fact the American and therefore should be ousted first, but for some > reason that didn't work. I really think that was my strongest strategy > and best opportunity to win, but maybe one of the observers can point out > where I went wrong. > > The only solution I can think of to this problem is to start claiming > Ruben for Team USA, since he lives in New York now. > Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. DaveZ Atom Weaver

[ quoted text not captured ] I'll post them, as soon I get home. The nosferatu deck I played on sunday was not a parity shift deck btw, just had some.. Ferenc

> Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an > internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the > game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. Not unless you have an actual suggestion for a more useful location for it, instead of simply griping without actual constructive input as to alternatives. > DaveZ > Atom Weaver -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] A multiplayer CCG isn't going to attract more players by moving its main discussion forum to a more visible location. Not in a million years will that make any difference. (Several things could and would and have been discussed at-length here over the years. I just wanted to note that moving the discussion forum isn't one of them.) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

On Oct 5, 9:51 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an > internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the > game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. To be fair, what do you actually suggest? The WW Forum is vastly suboptimally designed since the "upgrade" (well, at least for my money). And, ya know, doesn't have a ton of traffic (for reasons I could guess on but not have any actual information on). And is the "official" discussion forum, but still, not a ton of traffic. And really, I don't think the relatively low turnout to the NAC had anything at all to do with people not knowing about it--there were literally hundreds of people (300+) qualified for the NAC, which means that some other large chunk of people played in Qualifiers (certainly not 4x as many, but I don't think it is at all unreasonable to say that 1000 individual people played in Qualifiers). And then even more who weren't qualified and went anyway. Previous years had about 100 people (IIRC). This year seemed low relative to previous ones, sure. But I doubt it was due to a lack of people knowing about it due to lack of visibility of the main discussion forum (which I don't think is actually that low in the first place). Like, I was qualified and am a huge fan of the game, but didn't go. As I generally can't go, as the NAC is always during a time that I can't get work off (which is pretty much all the time except when they tell me I get time off)--I probably could have pulled off a "fly down Friday night and fly back Sunday night and hope I don't miss any planes", but that generally isn't in my budget. But maybe one day I'll get to go. I suspect a lot of people are in similar boats. -Peter

> Like, I was qualified and am a huge fan of the game, but didn't go. As > I generally can't go, as the NAC is always during a time that I can't > get work off (which is pretty much all the time except when they tell > me I get time off)--I probably could have pulled off a "fly down > Friday night and fly back Sunday night and hope I don't miss any > planes", but that generally isn't in my budget. But maybe one day I'll > get to go. I suspect a lot of people are in similar boats. I totally agree. The timing of the NAC is awful. I would much rather it be in the summer so you have a good spacing between the NAC and the EC, sort of line the Summer Olympics and the winter Olympics. I also think you are losing alot of American players due to the choice between going to Europe for a week of vacation and going to Atlanta for a week of vacation. The two dates are in such close proximity that players, who have jobs, have to choose one or the other. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot escribi�: [...] > > I totally agree. The timing of the NAC is awful. I would much rather > it be in the summer so you have a good spacing between the NAC and the > EC, sort of line the Summer Olympics and the winter Olympics. If the NAC were in July or August I would be able to attend :) -- Damnans http://www.almadrava.net/damnans http://www.vtes.net http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/ http://iuturna.sorcery.net (IRC channel: #vtes)

On Oct 6, 2:03 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an > > internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the > > game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. > > Not unless you have an actual suggestion for a more useful location > for it, I've got plenty, but by the first round of responses, its clear that Jyhad old-timers don't see a particular problem... None of the discussion that might follow is particularly worthwhile, if we're still in the "denial" phase. If the consensus is to stay in Google Groups, at least move it out of Usenet, and into Google Groups proper, and ditch "Jyhad", which is hasn't been named for over a decade... Search "VTES" from the top search window at groups.google.com; http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?lnk=nhpsfg&q=VTES&qt_s=Search+for+a+group Results 1. VTES in Vilnius (22 members) 2. VTES in LA (47 members) 3, VTES Northen Minnesota (22 members) 4. Domain Canberra (47 members) etc Usenet groups don't even show up in Google Groups search results. Assuming a gamer has interest in VTES, they're not going to find the main discussion forum without some serious assistance... Oh, and to Peter; I wasn't discussing the NAC turnout, specifically, which is clearly been affected by the economic downturn... but rather the impact that minimal visibility has on US interest in the game. While I don't play much at all any more, I do keep tabs on the gaming industry through a bunch of mainstream channels; industry ones like icv2, GAMA, etc and social network sites (facebook, etc.) I don't see VTES visible on them to any signfiicant degree. If I wasn't already aware of the game, I wouldn't know it exists. The hidden/buried player discussion forum was probably just the first example of "lack of visibility" that came to my mind. Getting off the topic of player visibility, and into wider game visibility, A WW free play game promoting VTES (or even V:tR) on facebook/myspace ala "DnD Tiny Adventures" with the "Paypal for perks" option would be an excellent promotional tool. I have no clue why WW is letting Zynga et. al. get whatever revenue is out there from games like Vampire Wars, when they're the ones who practically re-invented vampires as a modern gaming genre. In that respect, WW's own lack of corporate visibility is part and parcel of VTES's problem... its not just the players and where they talk, although given VTES's "grassroots" nature, that plays a not insignficant role, IMO. DaveZ Atom Weaver DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Oct 6, 8:48 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 9:51 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an > > internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the > > game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. > > To be fair, what do you actually suggest? The WW Forum is vastly > suboptimally designed since the "upgrade" (well, at least for my > money). And, ya know, doesn't have a ton of traffic (for reasons I > could guess on but not have any actual information on). And is the > "official" discussion forum, but still, not a ton of traffic. > I mentioned above,at least un-bury the buried forum; move out of Usenet, ditch the ancient 'jyhad' moniker, and get up into Google Groups proper, to enjoy the added visibility that affords you on the Google search engine. > And really, I don't think the relatively low turnout to the NAC had > anything at all to do with people not knowing about it--there were > literally hundreds of people (300+) qualified for the NAC, which means > that some other large chunk of people played in Qualifiers (certainly > not 4x as many, but I don't think it is at all unreasonable to say > that 1000 individual people played in Qualifiers). And then even more > who weren't qualified and went anyway. Previous years had about 100 > people (IIRC). This year seemed low relative to previous ones, sure. > But I doubt it was due to a lack of people knowing about it due to > lack of visibility of the main discussion forum (which I don't think > is actually that low in the first place). > I know that there is likely nothing that could be done in this year to raise attendance...any push to try to improve game visibility (and participation) is in the interest of future events. dZ AW

Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> writes: > On Oct 6, 2:03 am, John Flournoy <carne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an > > > internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the > > > game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. > > > > Not unless you have an actual suggestion for a more useful location > > for it, > > I've got plenty, but by the first round of responses, its clear that > Jyhad old-timers don't see a particular problem... None of the > discussion that might follow is particularly worthwhile, if we're > still in the "denial" phase. > > If the consensus is to stay in Google Groups, at least move it out of > Usenet, and into Google Groups proper, and ditch "Jyhad", which is > hasn't been named for over a decade... Let me get this straight: You want to move this group away from Usenet, which is old technology but works, into Google Groups, which is that part of Google that sucks and is broken? HG

Atom Weaver wrote: > On Oct 6, 8:48 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Oct 5, 9:51 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an >>> internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the >>> game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. >> To be fair, what do you actually suggest? The WW Forum is vastly >> suboptimally designed since the "upgrade" (well, at least for my >> money). And, ya know, doesn't have a ton of traffic (for reasons I >> could guess on but not have any actual information on). And is the >> "official" discussion forum, but still, not a ton of traffic. >> > I mentioned above,at least un-bury the buried forum; move out of > Usenet, ditch the ancient 'jyhad' moniker, and get up into Google > Groups proper, to enjoy the added visibility that affords you on the > Google search engine. Or just head over to boardgamegeek.com, like rec.games.board did years ago.

On Oct 6, 12:21 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Atom Weaver wrote: > > I mentioned above,at least un-bury the buried forum; move out of > > Usenet, ditch the ancient 'jyhad' moniker, and get up into Google > > Groups proper, to enjoy the added visibility that affords you on the > > Google search engine. > > Or just head over to boardgamegeek.com, like rec.games.board did years ago. Reasonable post is reasonable. DZ AW

On Oct 6, 11:21 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Atom Weaver wrote: > > > I mentioned above,at least un-bury the buried forum; move out of > > Usenet, ditch the ancient 'jyhad' moniker, and get up into Google > > Groups proper, to enjoy the added visibility that affords you on the > > Google search engine. > > Or just head over to boardgamegeek.com, like rec.games.board did years ago. > I don't see an issue with having a discussion group at boardgamegeek, but abandoning USENET seems stupid, considering it's been around forever, is already the perfect forum for discussion, and can be accessed by anyone since the rise of DejaNews (which is now Google Groups). "Internet backwater" is just a stupid way to describe USENET and shows a general lack of understanding of the way the internet works... Moving to "Google Groups proper" simply locks out those people who use a newsreader and doesn't particularly help those who use Google Groups like myself. Though having the WW official forum be more visible probably wouldn't hurt... personally, I just prefer newsgroups over forums...

On Oct 5, 12:59 am, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote: > In any case a great experience for all participants, and I want to > thank you the participants for attending, LSJ for judging the > tournaments and the organizers for the tournament David & Robyn Tatu, > Jeff Thompson and Oscar Garza for their huge efforts for making the > tournament happen. Thank you very much. Seconded! And also a big thanks to Oscar for organizing the tour of the White Wolf facilities, and the free beer and exotic meats which followed. :) I want to apologize to everyone whom I didn't get a chance to say goodbye to on Sunday - I looked around for everyone before heading upstairs to pass out, but didn't see a lot of you. It was great to meet a bunch of people I'd not met before, particularly those of you who took the trip across the Atlantic. Thanks for making the journey, and for all the evidence that Danes truly are the happiest people in the world. And many thanks to LSJ for introducing many of us to Battlestar Galactica, and for letting us use your set even when you were too busy elsewhere to play. FFG should soon be sending you a royalty check, given how many of us decided to buy the game... John "Not a Cylon" Eno

Kevin M. wrote: > Atom Weaver wrote: >> "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: >>> Not such a good showing for team USA this year. The Euros swept all >>> the main tournaments and Americans only had one seat at each of the >>> LCQ, day 1 and day 2 tournaments. In fact, I was the only American >>> to score a game win on day 2. I tried to confuse the issue by >>> insisting that Michael was in fact the American and therefore should >>> be ousted first, but for some reason that didn't work. I really >>> think that was my strongest strategy and best opportunity to win, >>> but maybe one of the observers can point out where I went wrong. >>> >>> The only solution I can think of to this problem is to start claiming >>> Ruben for Team USA, since he lives in New York now. >> Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an >> internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the >> game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. > > A multiplayer CCG isn't going to attract more players by moving its main > discussion forum to a more visible location. Not in a million years will > that make any difference. > > (Several things could and would and have been discussed at-length here > over the years. I just wanted to note that moving the discussion forum > isn't one of them.) > > I don't agree that it won't make any (i.e. ZERO) difference. I'm just not sure it will make a large enough difference to make up for the loss of a very nice interface. I for one hate the VTES forum's interface. Which is why I never go there. best - chris

Atom Weaver wrote: > On Oct 6, 8:48 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On Oct 5, 9:51 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an >>> internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the >>> game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. >> To be fair, what do you actually suggest? The WW Forum is vastly >> suboptimally designed since the "upgrade" (well, at least for my >> money). And, ya know, doesn't have a ton of traffic (for reasons I >> could guess on but not have any actual information on). And is the >> "official" discussion forum, but still, not a ton of traffic. >> > I mentioned above,at least un-bury the buried forum; move out of > Usenet, ditch the ancient 'jyhad' moniker, and get up into Google > Groups proper, to enjoy the added visibility that affords you on the > Google search engine. > > >> I think this is a reasonable thing to attempt to change. Can we do a RFP or whatever to the Usenet folks to change the name from .jyhad to .vtes? What is that process? best - chris

On Oct 6, 12:18 pm, h...@iki.fi (Janne Hägglund) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That is _exactly_ what I'm suggesting, yes. Why, you might ask? Because, with respect towards the larger health/visibility of the game, the convenience/performance of Usenet is grossly overshadowed by its obscurity. Usenet may not suck as much as Google Groups in terms of functionality... but hardly anybody in the hobby gaming community (except for hardcore VTES players) uses it anymore. VTES is the proverbial tree falling in the woods, in that respect. DZ AW

On Oct 6, 1:13 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > I don't see an issue with having a discussion group at boardgamegeek, > but abandoning USENET seems stupid, considering it's been around > forever, is already the perfect forum for discussion, and can be > accessed by anyone since the rise of DejaNews (which is now Google > Groups). > "can be" accessed is true. And I don't want to sugar-coat the sacrifice of usability to anyone. Usenet is/was a good service, and > "Internet backwater" is just a stupid way to describe USENET and shows > a general lack of understanding of the way the internet works... Well, no. It describes the volume of traffic vs. other internet forums. WOuld you prefer it if I called it something less perjorative, say "Usenet is the Route 66 of the Internet".. Like it or not, Usenet is a nostalgic, pre-web version of the Internet, little- used by those not already familiar with it. VTES's potential audience of new players isn't here (they're over on the "interstate" of facebook/myspace/etc. social networking sites), and would find it tough to get here, even with directions. > Moving to "Google Groups proper" simply locks out those people who use > a newsreader and doesn't particularly help those who use Google Groups > like myself. All of this addresses existing VTES players, and not potential new players... > Though having the WW official forum be more visible > probably wouldn't hurt... *personally, I just prefer newsgroups over > forums...* There's the truth. And again, i wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm sugar-coating giving that up in exchange for greater visibility, but this game has been around for years now, and its largely all the same people playing it.. Something's gotta give. Guys like me get married and have young kids, my participation is (in the short term of the next couple of years) limited. It'd be nice to see some new faces playing when I get the chance to get back into the game. And again, I agree that consciously moving the discussion somewhere more visible won't on its own, necessarily fix everything, but it would be one step that VTES "grassroots" could take to try to improve things. The other would be WW putting some well-considered promotional effort into VTES's web presence. With two minutes of brainstorming; Update Rob Grau's almost decade-old online demo, maybe? Put a little of the profits of the game, back into web-advertising for the game? Take another stab at online play, maybe through a dumbed-down facebook/ myspace app (with an everpresent VTES advertisement link)? Announce new expansions (a free service) in the ICV2 weekly e-mail? Or the GAMA quarterly newsletter? Manufacture some kind of VTES tie-in with some CCP product/update/release? Point is, its a great property... It'd be nice if WW you know, _did_ something with it. DZ AW

On Oct 6, 2:07 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Oct 6, 1:13 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > I don't see an issue with having a discussion group at boardgamegeek, > > but abandoning USENET seems stupid, considering it's been around > > forever, is already the perfect forum for discussion, and can be > > accessed by anyone since the rise of DejaNews (which is now Google > > Groups). > > "can be" accessed is true. And I don't want to sugar-coat the > sacrifice of usability to anyone. Usenet is/was a good service, and > Oops, sorry for the incomplete section. "Can be" is a far cry from "is". People don't use Unset in significant numbers. Young adult gamers with disposable income, even less so.

Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] In that case, enjoy your Google Groups. I'll stay right here - with my newsreader, that flawlessly remembers which posts I have read, which I have not yet read, and which I have read but saved because I want to read them again. If you want people to migrate, then for God's sake find an alternative that *doesn't* suck compared to Usenet. I wouldn't mind migrating, if the new place were *at least* as good as Usenet. HG

[ quoted text not captured ] Your priorities are clear. Thanks. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Can be" is a far cry from "is". People don't use Unset in > significant numbers. Young adult gamers with disposable income, even > less so. Sure, but due to the wonders of google.groups, usenet is easily available to young adult gamers with disposable income. And easily found through links all over the VTES web community--if you google for "vampire the eternal struggle", the first hit is the White Wolf VTES page. The first link under "player resources" is this here newsgroup. And it is referenced in the back of all the rulebooks. And every fan web page for VTES I have ever been to has a link to this discussion forum. I mean, I totally understand where you are coming from in terms of going in a "It's flashy! The Kids will like it!" direction. But I don't know that flashy is going to be any more effective at getting noticability. And flashy is, likely to the vast majority of the existing playerbase, really annoying. I mean, maybe I'm just a cranky old guy who hates cel phones and texting and whatever it is the kids today are into ("Mattlock!!!"), but web forums are just *sooooo* much less worthwhile for actual discussion of things. They are slow, klunky, waste time and effort of animated avatars and that sort of crap, and tend to throw readability and use out the window in the name of shiny lights and crap. Like, what would you envision as a good end result for a new discussion forum? -Peter

On Oct 5, 5:36 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Thanks for coming to Atlanta and putting up such a good report. Thanks for the appreciation .. and I will try one of the pepper sauces you brought anytime soon! > Sorry about that 3rd round on day 1. About that 3rd round .. your deck is not worse or better than any Kindred Spirits bleed deck. And at least your deck was original (Basilia Multi-Rush with weenie dom support) and even nearly made the GW at the table. Best regards, Ralf P.S.: I would have loved to play a casual game with/against you.

Haven't heard it mentioned yet, but why not move the NAC to Origins? White-Wolf already supports VTES there. Is buying more table space to support an NAC at Origins that much more than the cost of hosting it later in the year at a separate location? Spend a little extra in advertising the events. All the other games had banners/cardboard displays that advertised what game was played in that section. Get a nice banner to hang on the wall or some such. Personally, I'd be more inclined to go check out a game advertising a North American Championship than one that's only unique feature is a laptop older than half the attendees at Origins. Strategic use of the nice VTES table cloths and stealing one of the loud people's round tables for the finals. Set it up and only use it for any finals game. You have the extra bonus of Origins being there. I'll wager most V:TES players also have some interest in other gaming related events held there too. It is much easier to justify to yourself the cost of attending an NAC if you're also attending a major convention at the same time. The US Nationals could be moved back to GenCon, or even kept at Origins as a predecessor tournament. Wed US Nats + miniQ, Thu miniQ + LCQ. Fri Day 1 NAC + draft/Rapid Thought after. Sat Day 2 NAC. Sun First Chance Qualifier. NAC and EC are 4-6 months apart then. Downsides: First year causes issues with qualified players. Solution is to carry over all players from the previous year once to make up for only having half a year to qualify. Combines two big draw events for VTES into one. Origins has a generally loyal following of attendees. The NAC itself will generally see a good showing itself for being the NAC. Week of Nightmares events leading up to it don't fit into the Origins schedule. Maybe having them hosted locally in Columbus could work, but having to get hotels before and during Origins may cause some issues. Maybe scrap the traditional leadup, or even run 3-4 events a day leading up to the major tourneys. Just some thoughts. Not expecting it to have a chance in hell of happening, but putting a solution out there.

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Obtenebration wrote: >Haven't heard it mentioned yet, but why not move the NAC to Origins? Because of the complaints of numerous players of having to pay ridiculous convention hotel prices combined with convention entry fees when they are only in attendance to play VTES. $69 a night for 4 people is pretty manageable (Atlanta NAC hotel). I've never stayed at a hotel near the Columbus Convention Center during Origins for anywhere near as reasonable a price. I don't object to NAC at Origins, or GenCon, or DragonCon, particularly. Origins is too early in the year. GenCon has had no attendance the last two years. DragonCon has the same hotel price issues that Origins & GenCon share.

[ quoted text not captured ] boardgamegeek.com is that good.

The Lasombra wrote: > Obtenebration wrote: >> Haven't heard it mentioned yet, but why not move the NAC to Origins? > > Because of the complaints of numerous players of having to pay > ridiculous convention hotel prices combined with convention entry fees > when they are only in attendance to play VTES. I have heard of people complaining about a convention's badge cost, but in 18 years of being at Origins supporting and GMing various games, I've never heard a single peep about the room rates. Maybe that's because people just accept that they're going to pay those rates. > $69 a night for 4 people is pretty manageable (Atlanta NAC hotel). > I've never stayed at a hotel near the Columbus Convention Center > during Origins for anywhere near as reasonable a price. I guess that depends on your definition of 'reasonable' and how you feel about sharing your room with 0-5 other people to keep costs down. > I don't object to NAC at Origins, or GenCon, or DragonCon, > particularly. Origins is too early in the year. GenCon has had no > attendance the last two years. DragonCon has the same hotel price > issues that Origins & GenCon share. Obviously I'm biased, but I'd love to have the NAC at Origins, or even somewhere other than Atlanta where reasonable prices are negotiated for an Oct/Nov NAC. It's nice for many reasons to have that $69/nt. Atlanta hotel available for the NAC but it's even nicer to have it elsewhere, if possible. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 5, 9:51 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Might I suggest getting the main VTES discussion group off of an > > internet backwater, in the hopes of attracting more interest to the > > game? More players = more competition, which builds better players. Good! GO AWAY!!! ALL OF YOU!!! Disturb my peace and tranquility no more!!! (*shakes fist in the most crotchety possible way*)

"librarian" <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote in message news:hafv7b$3v8$1...@news.eternal-september.org... > I think this is a reasonable thing to attempt to change. Can we do a RFP or whatever to the Usenet folks to change the name from > .jyhad to .vtes? What is that process? Man. I am OLD and I forget! I used to know but that was too many years ago. The last I recall, questions like that could be answered (eventually...) by starting at news.announce.newusers and reading the FAQs on newsgroup creation (and such). Fred

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: > but web forums are just *sooooo* much > less worthwhile for actual discussion of things. They are slow, > klunky, waste time and effort of animated avatars and that sort of > crap, and tend to throw readability and use out the window in the name > of shiny lights and crap. +1 cheers, -jakob

Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> writes: > Assuming a gamer has interest in VTES, they're not going to find the > main discussion forum without some serious assistance... Like looking at the game's official website, or reading the effing manual? This hypothetical gamer needs some serious assistance, indeed. cheers, -jakob

Well, *good* web forums can be very nice. As an example, the rpg.net forum is an extremely nice community, the design is clean, and the site is reasonably fast. Unfortunately, pretty much none of that applies to the WW forums. The design is over-cluttered with crap, they are dog-slow, and prone to bugs. Since that *is* the "official" forum, but still we see the actual discussion happen here, people have voted on which they prefer (by a huge margin). Were WW to actually some day come up with a fast, clean web forum design, this discussion might become more relevant. But I would not hold my breath... WW makes great games but their web systems have always been crap. -Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] If you look at similar collectible game forums online (most notable HCRealms.com and MTGSalvation.com being the best) most of them load up fast, have a clean interface and with a few moderators the annoying people could be herded away from the actual discussions. I would be all for this proposed site, maybe even integrate the newsgroups into the site thus not needing forum software or actual change of venue. Maybe gather resources of those already established to form a new, 'flashy , community like Extrala or Charlotte by Night. It seems most of White Wolf Fandom is archaic and unorganized, look at the One World By Night website, it looks like mid 90s tech. Any thoughts, currently available space, web hosts, programmers want to start this project, maybe with input from the 'old guard'? -Brandon

Orava <or...@orava.org> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Tell me about it! I *still* cant get the complete HTML card list to load from White Wolf's official website. > -Petri HG

[ quoted text not captured ] And most usenet groups are also less worthwhile than this one. So? boardgamegeek's forums have lots of features, including animated avatars, but are fast, unklunky, and very readable and usable.

Janne H�gglund wrote: > I *still* cant get the complete HTML card list to load from White Wolf's > official website. It's too long for the standard (php) server. Go for the straight HTML: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/HTML/cardlist.html

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Thanks. But that kinda emphasises the point Petri made, about WW websites sucking. I went to the White Wolf website, clicked on the links it provided, and got a card list that has been broken for Caine knows how many months (years?). To find a link that works, the net rep has to provide one for me. "General Secretary White Wolf, tear down this website!" HG

On Oct 6, 11:55 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I have heard of people complaining about a convention's badge cost, > but in 18 years of being at Origins supporting and GMing various > games, I've never heard a single peep about the room rates. Maybe > that's because people just accept that they're going to pay those rates. There are a lot of valid reasons that the NAC isn't at Origins, and price is a very significant one (I don't think *anyone* could suck up the price of a Week of Nightmares at a hotel in reasonable range of Origins). Time is also a significant issue--Origins is early in the summer, and historically speaking, summer is also the best time for Qualifier events. I don't know that October is any worse, time wise for most people than early June. I mean, it blows for me, and if the NAC was, like, late August, I could probably go. But for other people with normal jobs, I don't know that the time aspect actually matters that much. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Any time from January to to July, I could probably do the whole week of nightmares, instead I step out for 1 Day in October and I can't get 2 seconds peace of mind due to the massive shifts in the business cycle while I am away. I will never go the any tournament in October every again.

On 6 Okt., 19:23, Johann von Doom <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 12:59 am, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > In any case a great experience for all participants, and I want to > > thank you the participants for attending, LSJ for judging the > > tournaments and the organizers for the tournament David & Robyn Tatu, > > Jeff Thompson and Oscar Garza for their huge efforts for making the > > tournament happen. Thank you very much. > > Seconded! And also a big thanks to Oscar for organizing the tour of > the White Wolf facilities, and the free beer and exotic meats which > followed. :) > > I want to apologize to everyone whom I didn't get a chance to say > goodbye to on Sunday - I looked around for everyone before heading > upstairs to pass out, but didn't see a lot of you. > > It was great to meet a bunch of people I'd not met before, > particularly those of you who took the trip across the Atlantic. > Thanks for making the journey, and for all the evidence that Danes > truly are the happiest people in the world. It's guys like us, who make it easy for the ones around us to be happy. :)

On Oct 7, 10:47 am, "Nikolaj \"Lord of the Betrayers\" Wendt" <nikolajwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's guys like us, who make it easy for the ones around us to be > happy. :) Heh! Well-played, sir. John Eno

On Oct 5, 12:59 am, extrala <ralf.lamm...@gmx.de> wrote: > Here are the comprehensive results of the NAC 2009 that took place > from October 2nd to 4th, 2009 in Atlanta, Georgia: > > NAC 2009 Championship: October 4th, 2009 > 1. Michael Heyder (GER) -- 1 GW 5.5 VP -- 3 VP -- Guruhi Bloat/Combat Have we seen a decklist for this on the newsgroup yet? I've been keeping an eye out, but I missed it if it's been posted. John Eno

On Oct 6, 5:20 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > "Can be" is a far cry from "is". People don't use Unset in > > significant numbers. Young adult gamers with disposable income, even > > less so. > > Sure, but due to the wonders of google.groups, usenet is easily > available to young adult gamers with disposable income. And easily > found through links all over the VTES web community--if you google for > "vampire the eternal struggle", the first hit is the White Wolf VTES > page. The first link under "player resources" is this here newsgroup. > And it is referenced in the back of all the rulebooks. And every fan > web page for VTES I have ever been to has a link to this discussion > forum. > Which all speaks to people already interested in VTES, Peter, and not to the forum as a meanso fmaking the game visible to non-players. What usenet has lost over the years is the value of... call it "adjacent traffic". Rec.games.* used to be an active hierarchy with a diversity of people looking in on everything that went on in them, even groups that weren't the original reason for their presence. That is all but gone in 2009, because nobody uses rec.games.board* or r.g. t-c.magic* or r.g.wargames or any of the rec. Usenet forums, honestly... This discussion forum is a reflection of the vitality and interest of the game, which says _loads_ about the game itself... That vitality drew a large number of curious readers from the r.g.* hierarchy, merely by being visible on a newsreader feed within the same usenet hierarchy (and also from participants in this newsgroup also making their presence known in others; cross-pollination, if you will...) That is the "boost" that one would hope VTES could enjoy again, if a good location were to be chosen, and a conscious effort made by existing player-forum participants to make a migration, and _interact_ online with players from other hobby games... Regardless of where the main discussion goes, it will gain greater visibility from being just about anywhere. I'm totally open to hashing out the pros and cons of boardgamegeek.com vs. Google Groups or whatever, but seeing as how VTES players are (still) a grassroots organization, the first thing that needs to be in place is a will of the majority to make a change. > I mean, I totally understand where you are coming from in terms of > going in a "It's flashy! The Kids will like it!" direction. But I > don't know that flashy is going to be any more effective at getting > noticability. And flashy is, likely to the vast majority of the > existing playerbase, really annoying. Its not the flash, so much as the presence of other warm gaming bodies that I'd look for... According to its ad sheet, tcgplayer.com has 400,000 unique visitors per month. I'd expect that boardgamegeek.com has even larger traffic than that. > I mean, maybe I'm just a cranky > old guy who hates cel phones and texting and whatever it is the kids > today are into ("Mattlock!!!"), but web forums are just *sooooo* much > less worthwhile for actual discussion of things. They are slow, > klunky, waste time and effort of animated avatars and that sort of > crap, and tend to throw readability and use out the window in the name > of shiny lights and crap. > Is that really a wholly accurate assessment of every last web forum you've used in the past year... or are you, like Janne, merely nostalgic for cruisin' your favorite stretch of highway? (and I _get_ that that has value) I have fewer problems with tcgplayer.com and/or boardgamegeek, than I do Google Groups/Usenet, even with the extra "flash". > Like, what would you envision as a good end result for a new > discussion forum? > A full migration of this forums participants to a mainstream site where players go to get news and info about hobby games. Ideally, with a user interface that is generally agreed upon to not suck. Extra ideally, if the VTES players here become respected forum regulars in other parts of that hypothetical site, and make it known that VTES is their hands-down favorite game of all time, it'll make a few more people ask "Why?". And with a forum with a half-million to a million monthly users, you don't need a very big percentage of curious people in order to have a _big_ impact on your player base; one tenth of one percent of that monthly figure would be 500 to 1000 people; 2 to 4 times the total number of players who qualified for the NAC this year... DZ AW

Atom Weaver <atomw...@sbcglobal.net> writes: > On Oct 6, 5:20 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > I mean, maybe I'm just a cranky > > old guy who hates cel phones and texting and whatever it is the kids > > today are into ("Mattlock!!!"), but web forums are just *sooooo* much > > less worthwhile for actual discussion of things. They are slow, > > klunky, waste time and effort of animated avatars and that sort of > > crap, and tend to throw readability and use out the window in the name > > of shiny lights and crap. > > > > Is that really a wholly accurate assessment of every last web forum > you've used in the past year... or are you, like Janne, merely > nostalgic for cruisin' your favorite stretch of highway? (and I _get_ > that that has value) I have fewer problems with tcgplayer.com and/or > boardgamegeek, than I do Google Groups/Usenet, even with the extra > "flash". I am *not* "nostalgic for cruisin' my favorite stretch of highway." My experience is based on my lurking in several different web forums, and none of them are *nearly* as trouble-free and pleasant to use as Usenet. LSJ already stated that boardgamegeek.com is supposed to be much much better than the webforums I already know. If that's the case, then I don't have any reason to oppose a switch. HG

[ quoted text not captured ] See, Peter, Fred pulls off a _much_ more convincing "crotchety old man" routine... :P DZ AW

On Oct 7, 11:02 am, Johann von Doom wrote: > > Here are the comprehensive results of the NAC 2009 that took place > > from October 2nd to 4th, 2009 in Atlanta, Georgia: > > NAC 2009 Championship: October 4th, 2009 > > 1. Michael Heyder (GER) -- 1 GW 5.5 VP -- 3 VP -- Guruhi Bloat/Combat > Have we seen a decklist for this on the newsgroup yet? I've been > keeping an eye out, but I missed it if it's been posted. Nothing yet. The organizer with the day 2 lists doesn't post on the newsgroup. They will go in their own threads, as appropriate, when I acquire them.

On Oct 7, 1:44 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Nothing yet. > The organizer with the day 2 lists doesn't post on the newsgroup. > They will go in their own threads, as appropriate, when I acquire them. Cool. Thanks, Jeff. John Eno

Janne H�gglund wrote: > LSJ already stated that boardgamegeek.com is supposed to be much much better > than the webforums I already know. If that's the case, then I don't have any > reason to oppose a switch. I'm already there. But so far it's just me and the occasional newbie. I welcome veterans and their decklists, convoluted judging questions, requests to have card text applied to this or that question, and suggestions for errata and bannings. :-) Come on over. The water's fine.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] How come I just started thinking about Serpentis and FoS cards like Temptation, Form of Corruption, Revelation of Ecstasy, Corruption and the like...? :-) OK, I'll see you there. HG

On Oct 7, 12:26 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Which all speaks to people already interested in VTES, Peter, and not > to the forum as a meanso fmaking the game visible to non-players. Sure. But then the issue is not "we want a new dedicated VTES discussion forum" (as that would also not make the game visible to non players) but instead "we want discussion of VTES in a non VTES specific forum". Which is certainly a possibility (which is one I certainly indicated as having potential in the same post), but I don't know what non VTES specific forum is good for this. > According to its ad sheet, tcgplayer.com has 400,000 unique visitors > per month. I'd expect that boardgamegeek.com has even larger traffic > than that. Is tcgplayer.com somewhere one could go and establish a VTES presence? I mean, really, I just don't know. tcgplayer may very well have 400,000 unique visitors per month, but I've never been one of them :-) > Is that really a wholly accurate assessment of every last web forum > you've used in the past year... or are you, like Janne, merely > nostalgic for cruisin' your favorite stretch of highway? (and I _get_ > that that has value) I have fewer problems with tcgplayer.com and/or > boardgamegeek, than I do Google Groups/Usenet, even with the extra > "flash". I mean, again, maybe I'm just cranky and old. But I do frequent a few web BBS systems for various games, and across the board, I object to: -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, that is what I have most experience with. -Flashy crap. I have a good wireless cable modem. And I still find web interfaces to be slower and klunkier than they need to be. And I might be irrationally blaming it on the banner ads and animated smilies and little cartoons of animals farting that people put in their avatars. -Non threaded discussion. I really dislike active discussions on web forums where folks respond to something on Page 3, and their response shows up on page 8. Even google.groups here puts things in the appropriate order. > A full migration of this forums participants to a mainstream site > where players go to get news and info about hobby games. This in no way strikes me as an unreasonable idea. But I don't know what such a sight would be. And it strikes me as, at least in some ways, problematic that we would be visitors to someone else's institution, and subject to their rules and whims. Which for one, I'm not a big fan of. But again, that's me. -Peter

On Oct 7, 5:06 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Is tcgplayer.com somewhere one could go and establish a VTES presence? > I mean, really, I just don't know. tcgplayer may very well have > 400,000 unique visitors per month, but I've never been one of them :-) Yeah, just responding to myself. Just went to tcgplayer.com. Yeesh. Like, the flashing banner ads, and need to click through movie and military ads to get to discussion seems atrocious. Yick. -Peter

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >-Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, >that is what I have most experience with. I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. One censored message and I'm gone. >-Flashy crap. I have a good wireless cable modem. And I still find web >interfaces to be slower and klunkier than they need to be. And I might >be irrationally blaming it on the banner ads and animated smilies and >little cartoons of animals farting that people put in their avatars. If you're using Internet Explorer there's an option for turning off image animation. It won't affect load times, since it still loads and displays the first frame of the image, but it does help make WWW forums more bearable. >-Non threaded discussion. I really dislike active discussions on web >forums where folks respond to something on Page 3, and their response >shows up on page 8. Even google.groups here puts things in the >appropriate order. Some WWW forum software will put a link back the original message when someone quotes a message, but that doesn't help when the responder doesn't bother to quote the message they're replying to. >> =A0 A full migration of this forums participants to a mainstream site >> where players go to get news and info about hobby games. > >This in no way strikes me as an unreasonable idea. If it were in no way unreasonable, this forum's participants would've already migrated to some "mainstream" site by now. The people in rec.games.board didn't move to BoardGameGeek because someone told them they should. I'd recommend that anyone actively trying to move VTES discussion somewhere else be careful. Even if there is a consensus that it should be moved and where, you can't actually force everyone to move en masse. The worst case scenario is that VTES discussion ends becoming up fragmented to the point where there's no longer a critical mass of participants in one place to keep it active. Ross Ridge -- l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU [oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca -()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ db //

On Oct 7, 7:18 pm, Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. One censored > message and I'm gone. Yeah, I'm way out on that kinda crap. I'm all for the inmates policing each other (I'll mention this before someone ironically points out that I hate moderation but spend a lot of time hassling people for being off topic and not following accepted rules...), and I'm perfectly happy to ask someone to do something different, or have someone ask someone else to do something different. But once someone starts locking threads and deleting crap, that is way off the rails of acceptable. > If you're using Internet Explorer there's an option for turning off > image animation. It won't affect load times, since it still loads and > displays the first frame of the image, but it does help make WWW forums > more bearable. Hmm. Not using Explorer. As it sucks for all sorts of other things. Maybe other browsers do these things. > Some WWW forum software will put a link back the original message when > someone quotes a message, but that doesn't help when the responder > doesn't bother to quote the message they're replying to. I've never seen a forum that auto links to the original message. Interesting. > If it were in no way unreasonable, No, no. Not in no way unreasonable. It in no way strikes me as an unreasonable idea. The idea in question is not unreasonable. I don't necessarily agree with it. But it is certainly a reasonable suggestion. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I have heard of people complaining about a convention's badge cost, >> but in 18 years of being at Origins supporting and GMing various >> games, I've never heard a single peep about the room rates. Maybe >> that's because people just accept that they're going to pay those >> rates. > > There are a lot of valid reasons that the NAC isn't at Origins, and > price is a very significant one (I don't think *anyone* could suck up > the price of a Week of Nightmares at a hotel in reasonable range of > Origins). I'm not sure that I give this point the credibility that you and Lasombra seem to give it, as I see *many* of the same players *every year* come to Origins and put 4-5 players in a $120/nt. room. Perhaps I'm only seeing the Origins participants do this but room cost didn't seem to be an issue for the Montreal NAC, and has never been for the people that I know who attend Origins and GenCon. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/ Please buy my cards! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmergen/m.html

XZealot wrote: > Any time from January to to July, I could probably do the whole week > of nightmares, instead I step out for 1 Day in October and I can't get > 2 seconds peace of mind due to the massive shifts in the business > cycle while I am away. If true, why aren't you attending Origins on a regular basis? >:( [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I mean, again, maybe I'm just cranky and old. But I do frequent a few > web BBS systems for various games, and across the board, I object to: > > -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated > anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, > that is what I have most experience with. Interesting that you so vehemently oppose game discussion posts related to players wanting to get their cards to other players, and have spent your valuable time making sure that everyone knows it, to the point that your letting users know about it outweighs the opposing posts about 10-1. Perhaps you aren't as hateful of moderated game discussion as you think. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ross Ridge wrote: > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >> anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, >> that is what I have most experience with. > > I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. > One censored message and I'm gone. Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. I dare you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > Ross Ridge <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: >> I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. One >> censored message and I'm gone. > > Yeah, I'm way out on that kinda crap. I'm all for the inmates policing > each other (I'll mention this before someone ironically points out > that I hate moderation but spend a lot of time hassling people for > being off topic and not following accepted rules...), Already done. You think I'd let such a softball pass without swinging for the rafters? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 7, 6:51 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Any time from January to to July, I could probably do the whole week > > of nightmares, instead I step out for 1 Day in October and I can't get > > 2 seconds peace of mind due to the massive shifts in the business > > cycle while I am away. > > If true, why aren't you attending Origins on a regular basis? >:( Truth be told, I do about 3-4 tournament weekends per year Origins is too far away and too expensive to do it as well as the Louisiana Qualifier, the Texas Qualifier, and the NAC. I did Dragon Con this year instead of the Louisiana Qualiifier because there was no Louisiana Qualifier. I also managed to do the Providence Qualifier and a tournament in Atlanta in April, which just so happened to match up with my travel schedule.

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message > news:xW9zm.225489$sC1....@newsfe17.iad... > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> I mean, again, maybe I'm just cranky and old. But I do frequent a few >> web BBS systems for various games, and across the board, I object to: >> >> -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >> anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, >> that is what I have most experience with. > > Interesting that you so vehemently oppose game discussion posts related > to players wanting to get their cards to other players, and have spent your > valuable time making sure that everyone knows it, to the point that your > letting users know about it outweighs the opposing posts about 10-1. > > Perhaps you aren't as hateful of moderated game discussion as you think. Or perhaps he just believes that the correct way to handle posts clearly outside the bounds of the agreed-upon topic for the forum is to inform the transgressors, as opposed to simply muzzling them (and maybe informing them as well, depending on the behavior of the particular moderator). The former has a few distinct advantages over the latter: 1) You can be sure the transgressor has been informed of his error. In a moderated system, you can't be. 2) Besides informing the transgressor, other prospective transgressors also have a chance to see the objection in advance. The issue gets some short- term visibility which can be beneficial (although such posts also qualify as more short-term noise WRT the discussion topic, it has to be granted). 3) Net.cops who are out of line with the true meaning of the discussion topic agreement (formalized in Usenet as the newsgroup charter) are corrected by other net.cops. This is useful whether the mistake was accidental or deliberate. Moderators, on the other hand, have no check. In fact, it may not be possible to even see when they're (mis)using their power, depending on how the mechanism of moderation works. 4) Although personality conflicts are more likely to arise, they're less likely to be too severe (at least in a good, congenial newsgroup). Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I totally agree. I have seen some conversations where someone calls the other lower than a dog on this newsgroup, and well that ends up being another discussion. I got someone hissy tissy on White-Wolfs forum and the whole thread got deleted.

[ quoted text not captured ] You could certainly come to Origins as a substitute for one of your Qualifiers, and just for Fri-Sun. More expensive probably, sure, but very efficient as you'll get two qualifiers (the US Nats and the real Qual) out of it, if that helps you. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:D1azm.225490$sC1.1...@newsfe17.iad... > Ross Ridge wrote: >> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>> -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >>> anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, >>> that is what I have most experience with. >> >> I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. >> One censored message and I'm gone. > > Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. > > I dare you. Note that Peter posting to complaint about a message (or to direct Ross to the FAQ) is not the same thing as censoring Ross's message. Fred

> You could certainly come to Origins as a substitute for one of your > Qualifiers, and just for Fri-Sun. More expensive probably, sure, but > very efficient as you'll get two qualifiers (the US Nats and the real Qual) > out of it, if that helps you. :) I'll obviously need the help, but what I would like perhaps that would be more attractive to many people would be if you wanted to do the Week of Nightmares with origins being the first weekend and the NAC being the second weekend with the Week of Nightmares sandwiched in between. It might be too much of a good thing on the other hand.

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Ross Ridge wrote: >>> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >>>> anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, >>>> that is what I have most experience with. >>> >>> I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. >>> One censored message and I'm gone. >> >> Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. >> >> I dare you. > > Note that Peter posting to complaint about a message (or to direct > Ross to the FAQ) is not the same thing as censoring Ross's message. Obviously. <the rest of a stunningly obvious response by KevinM deleted> [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Xmazm.225494$sC1....@newsfe17.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Ross Ridge wrote: >>>> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>> -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >>>>> anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, >>>>> that is what I have most experience with. >>>> >>>> I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. >>>> One censored message and I'm gone. >>> >>> Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. >>> >>> I dare you. >> >> Note that Peter posting to complaint about a message (or to direct >> Ross to the FAQ) is not the same thing as censoring Ross's message. > > Obviously. > > <the rest of a stunningly obvious response by KevinM deleted> Stunningly obvious to anyone besides KevinM?

Frederick Scott wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>> Ross Ridge wrote: >>>>> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>> -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >>>>>> anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the >>>>>> internet, that is what I have most experience with. >>>>> >>>>> I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. >>>>> One censored message and I'm gone. >>>> >>>> Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. >>>> >>>> I dare you. >>> >>> Note that Peter posting to complaint about a message (or to direct >>> Ross to the FAQ) is not the same thing as censoring Ross's message. >> >> Obviously. >> >> <the rest of a stunningly obvious response by KevinM deleted> > > Stunningly obvious to anyone besides KevinM? To whom the response is stunningly obvious is an exercise left up to the long-time rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad reader. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:Vwazm.225496$sC1.1...@newsfe17.iad... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Frederick Scott wrote: >>>> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>>>> Ross Ridge wrote: >>>>>> Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>>> -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated >>>>>>> anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the >>>>>>> internet, that is what I have most experience with. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. >>>>>> One censored message and I'm gone. >>>>> >>>>> Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. >>>>> >>>>> I dare you. >>>> >>>> Note that Peter posting to complaint about a message (or to direct >>>> Ross to the FAQ) is not the same thing as censoring Ross's message. >>> >>> Obviously. >>> >>> <the rest of a stunningly obvious response by KevinM deleted> >> >> Stunningly obvious to anyone besides KevinM? > > To whom the response is stunningly obvious is an exercise left up to > the long-time rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad reader. ;) Fine. Give the voices in your head my warmest regards.

On Oct 7, 8:05 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. > > I dare you. Yeah, see, as noted, there is a vast difference between: A) The members of a given community maintaining a standard of rules and whatever through suggestion and reinforcement. and B) A unilaterally powerful moderator censoring, deleting, and removing messages. I can suggest that people not post sales posts. I can point to the group charter. I can't actually prevent them from doing so, or retroactively remove their posts after they do. A vast. Vast difference. -Peter

On Oct 7, 7:58 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Interesting that you so vehemently oppose game discussion posts related > to players wanting to get their cards to other players, and have spent your > valuable time making sure that everyone knows it, to the point that your > letting users know about it outweighs the opposing posts about 10-1. Sure. I also oppose people having lengthy discussions about Hannah Montana in this forum. As that also isn't appropriate. And yet I can't actually prevent anyone from doing so with anything other than asking them to stop. Which is all I want to do. > Perhaps you aren't as hateful of moderated game discussion as you think. Nope. I wouldn't want anyone here with the power to delete and censor posts, even if they are completely inappropriate. I'm perfectly happy to work under a situation where we police ourselves. -Peter

On Oct 7, 7:50 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I'm not sure that I give this point the credibility that you and Lasombra > seem to give it, as I see *many* of the same players *every year* come > to Origins and put 4-5 players in a $120/nt. room. I was talking about a whole week (i.e. Week of Nightmares), not the 4 days of Origins. Going to Origins is something that people do. I suspect far fewer people would stay from Sunday to Sunday for the whole week was my point. But maybe not. -Peter

On Oct 7, 8:28 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Obviously. And yet you bring it up as if it is the same thing. What I am clearly opposed to is a moderator unilaterally deleting, censoring, and ending discussion. I have no problem at all with members of a community policing each other. -Peter

Ross Ridge wrote: > I've got a zero tolerance policy with regard to moderation. > One censored message and I'm gone. Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >Post a message saying you have some cards to sell. > >I dare you. I'd have given up on Usenet long, long, ago if I couldn't tolerate someone flaming me for posting something they thought was inappropriate. Or more accurately, if I couldn't just flame them back. On the other hand, when some moderator deletes a message of mine because it indirectly disagrees with something they wrote, I feel like my time has been wasted and would be better spent somewhere else. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 7, 5:06 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 7, 12:26 pm, Atom Weaver <atomwea...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > Which all speaks to people already interested in VTES, Peter, and not > > to the forum as a meanso fmaking the game visible to non-players. > > Sure. But then the issue is not "we want a new dedicated VTES > discussion forum" (as that would also not make the game visible to non > players) Correct. > but instead "we want discussion of VTES in a non VTES > specific forum". > Yeah. I guess I wasn't clear from the start that this was my point... > Which is certainly a possibility (which is one I certainly indicated > as having potential in the same post), but I don't know what non VTES > specific forum is good for this. > probably boardgamegeek.com would be decent, although game-specific discussions there are a little bit buried. > > According to its ad sheet, tcgplayer.com has 400,000 unique visitors > > per month. I'd expect that boardgamegeek.com has even larger traffic > > than that. > > Is tcgplayer.com somewhere one could go and establish a VTES presence? You very well could, but I wouldn't recommend it 9from your other post, I know you saw the serious detractors from that site). The point about tcgplayer was to take note of the sheer mass of gaming bodies that don't see/know a thing about VTES.... WW should be advertising VTES there, though... > I mean, really, I just don't know. tcgplayer may very well have > 400,000 unique visitors per month, but I've never been one of them :-) > Well, you're a lifetime VTES-COM (Cranky Old Man), so you aren't really the target audience that a move would be designed to entice... > > Is that really a wholly accurate assessment of every last web forum > > you've used in the past year... or are you, like Janne, merely > > nostalgic for cruisin' your favorite stretch of highway? (and I _get_ > > that that has value) I have fewer problems with tcgplayer.com and/or > > boardgamegeek, than I do Google Groups/Usenet, even with the extra > > "flash". > > I mean, again, maybe I'm just cranky and old. But I do frequent a few > web BBS systems for various games, and across the board, I object to: > > -Moderators. I hate moderated game discussion. I hate moderated > anything discussion. But as I mostly discuss games on the internet, > that is what I have most experience with. > > -Flashy crap. I have a good wireless cable modem. And I still find web > interfaces to be slower and klunkier than they need to be. And I might > be irrationally blaming it on the banner ads and animated smilies and > little cartoons of animals farting that people put in their avatars. > > -Non threaded discussion. I really dislike active discussions on web > forums where folks respond to something on Page 3, and their response > shows up on page 8. Even google.groups here puts things in the > appropriate order. > I don't disagree. Flash and threading can be corrected with user settings in most modern web discussion forum software (vBulletin, phpBB, etc.), but moderation is a real issue. I won't pretend it isn't, just to make my case. There is only one website discussion forum whose moderation policy I back 100% (talkrational.org) so moderation should factor large in to "qualifying" anyplace that we'd consider. > > A full migration of this forums participants to a mainstream site > > where players go to get news and info about hobby games. > > This in no way strikes me as an unreasonable idea. I'll stop reading right there!!! ;-) DaveZ AW

Ross Ridge wrote: > If you're using Internet Explorer there's an option for turning off > image animation. =A0It won't affect load times, since it still loads and > displays the first frame of the image, but it does help make WWW forums > more bearable. Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >Hmm. Not using Explorer. As it sucks for all sorts of other things. >Maybe other browsers do these things. I've tried other browsers, but I end up sticking with Internet Explorer because of little customization features like this which just make the WWW a much more bearable place for me. I checked Firefox and couldn't find a similar option, but I'm have an older version and there might be some third party plugin that can disable animated images. >> Some WWW forum software will put a link back the original message when >> someone quotes a message, but that doesn't help when the responder >> doesn't bother to quote the message they're replying to. > >I've never seen a forum that auto links to the original message. >Interesting. Look for some sort of arrow icon at the top of quoted text. The forum software on TCGplayer supports it, but the software on BoardGameGeek doesn't seem to. [ quoted text not captured ]

Atom Weaver wrote: > probably boardgamegeek.com would be decent, although game-specific > discussions there are a little bit buried. They show up on the front page ("Game Forums"). So whatever people are talking about, other people see.

[ quoted text not captured ] There ya go. I always have had to get to their VTES discussions by clicking through to the game-specific VTES page. I guess that is largely a consequence of the low volume of posts. DZ AW